RUNNING HEAD : THE SOCIAL ORIENTATION HYPOTHESIS-1The Origin of Cultural Differences in Cognition : The Social Orientation Hypothesis
(2009)

A large body of research documents cognitive differences between Westerners and East Asians. Westerners tend to be more analytic and East Asians tend to be more holistic. These findings have often been explained as being due to corresponding differences in social orientation. Westerners are more independent and Easterners are more interdependent. However, comparisons of the cognitive tendencies of Westerners and East Asians do not allow us to rule out alternative explanations for the cognitive differences, such as linguistic and genetic differences, as well as cultural differences other than social orientation. In this review we summarize recent developments that provide stronger support for the social-orientation hypothesis. Keywordsculture; cross-cultural differences; within-culture differences; reasoning; independence/interdependence; holistic/analytic cognition RUNNING HEAD: THE SOCIAL ORIENTATION HYPOTHESIS 3 Cultural psychologists have consistently found different patterns of thinking and perception in different societies, with some cultures demonstrating a more analytic pattern and others a more holistic pattern (see Table 1). Analytic cognition is characterized by taxonomic and rule-based categorization of objects, a narrow focus in visual attention, dispositional bias in causal attribution, and the use of formal logic in reasoning. In contrast, holistic cognition is characterized by thematic and familyresemblance-based categorization of objects, a focus on contextual information and relationships in visual attention, an emphasis on situational causes in attribution, and dialecticism (Nisbett, Peng, Choi, & Norenzayan, 2001). What unites the elements of the analytic style is a tendency to focus on a single dimension or aspect—whether in categorizing objects or evaluating arguments—and a tendency to disentangle phenomena from the contexts in which they are embedded—for example, focusing on the individual as a causal agent or attending to focal objects in visual scenes. What unites the elements of the holistic style is a broad attention to context and relationships in visual attention, categorizing objects, and explaining social behavior. Table 1 about here Cultures also differ in their social orientations (independence vs. interdependence) (see Table 2). Cultures that endorse and afford independent social orientation tend to emphasize self-direction, autonomy, and self-expression. Cultures that endorse and afford interdependent social orientation tend to emphasize harmony, relatedness, and connection. Independently oriented cultures tend to view the self as bounded and separate from social others, whereas interdependently oriented cultures tend to view the self as interconnected and as encompassing important relationships (e.g. Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Triandis, 1989). In independently oriented cultural contexts, happiness is most often experienced as a socially disengaging emotion (i.e. pride), whereas in interdependently oriented cultural contexts, happiness is most often experienced as a RUNNING HEAD: THE SOCIAL ORIENTATION HYPOTHESIS 4 socially engaging emotion (i.e. sense of closeness to others; Kitayama, Mesquita, & Karasawa, 2006). Finally, in cultures that have an independent social orientation, people are more motivated to symbolically enhance the self at the expense of others; this tendency is not as common in interdependently oriented cultures (Kitayama, Ishii, Imada, Takemura, & Ramaswamy, 2006; Kitayama, Mesquita, & Karasawa, 2006). Table 2 about here The proposition that cultures differing in their social orientation (independence vs. interdependence) also differ in their cognitive habits (analytic vs. holistic cognition) is by no means new (e.g. Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Witkin & Berry, 1975). Indeed one can trace the origin of this claim back at least to Tönnies (/2002). And certainly a large body of literature has demonstrated that cultures which differ in social orientation also show corresponding differences in cognitive style; Western societies tend to be more independent and more analytic, while East Asian societies tend to be more interdependent and holistic (Nisbett et al., 2001). On the basis of such evidence, it has been proposed that differences in social orientation are the driving force behind cultural differences in cognition (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Nisbett et al., 2001). While the link between social orientation and cognitive style has been widely accepted, the evidence presented until recently has not provided strong support for this connection. East Asia and the West are huge geographic and cultural areas differing from one another in many ways. There are fairly large genetic differences between the two populations. The linguistic differences are large. Western languages are almost all IndoEuropean in origin and differ in many systematic ways from the major languages of East Asia. And there are many large cultural differences between the two regions other than in social orientation along lines of independence and interdependence. East Asia was heavily influenced by Confucian values and ways of thought and European cultures were heavily influenced by ancient Greek, specifically Aristotelian, values and ways of RUNNING HEAD: THE SOCIAL ORIENTATION HYPOTHESIS 5 thought (Lloyd, 1996). Just within this broad set of cultural differences it would be possible to find many hypotheses that might account for the kind of cognitive differences that have been observed between East and West. Examples of other large societal differences between East and West have to do with the length of time that the respective societies have been industrialized and the degree to which political institutions in these societies have a tradition of being democratic. Both of these latter dimensions are frequently invoked to account for a host of differences between East and West. In the present review, we focus on recent studies that narrow the plausible range of candidates for explaining the cognitive differences. These studies look at much tighter cultural comparisons than those found in previous research. These studies compare Eastern and Western Europe, Europe with the United States, northern and southern Italy, Hokkaido and Mainland Japan, adjacent villages in Turkey, and middle-class and working-class Americans. All of these comparisons involve contrasting more interdependent cultures with more independent cultures. We also review research that manipulates independence vs. interdependence and finds differences in analytic vs. holistic cognition The recent studies make it much less likely that the cognitive differences observed between East and West are due to large genetic or linguistic differences and make it more plausible that the cognitive differences are indeed due to differences in social orientation having to do with independence vs. interdependence rather than to societal differences such as Aristotelian vs. Confucian intellectual traditionsor degree of industrialization. RUNNING HEAD: THE SOCIAL ORIENTATION HYPOTHESIS 6 CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARISONS Several recent studies have shown that the covariation between social orientation and cognitive style is not confined to North America and East Asia. Even within societies that are part of the European cultural tradition, one observes that cultures differing in social orientation also differ in terms of cognitive style. For example, East Europeans and Americans differ along these dimensions. Russians are more interdependent than Americans (Grossmann, 2009; Matsumoto, Takeuchi, Andayani, Kouznetsova, & Krupp, 1998) and are more holistic in terms of categorization, attribution, visual attention, and reasoning about change (Grossmann, 2009). Similarly, Croats are more interdependent than Americans (Šverko, 1995) and show more holistic patterns of cognition in terms of categorization and visual attention (Varnum, Grossmann, Katunar, Nisbett, & Kitayama, 2008). Recent evidence suggests that similar differences exist within Europe. Russians, who are more interdependent than Germans (Naumov, 1996), also show more contextual patterns of visual attention (Medzheritskaya, 2008). WITHIN-CULTURE DIFFERENCES The fact that social orientation and cognitive style covary in comparisons across and within broad cultural regions does not fully address alternative explanations for this pattern. Cross-cultural differences in cognition might conceivably be accounted for by differences in linguistics, genetics, and degree and recency of industrialization and democratization. However, studies comparing groups within the same culture tend to argue against such interpretations. In a recent study comparing Hokkaido Japanese with those from mainland Japan, Kitayama and colleagues (Kitayama, Ishii, et al., 2006) found that those from Hokkaido RUNNING HEAD: THE SOCIAL ORIENTATION HYPOTHESIS 7 (settled by pioneers from the southern Japanese islands) were more independent than those from the main islands and also showed more dispositional bias in attribution. Similarly, Northern Italians, who are more independent than Southern Italians (Martella & Maass, 2000), also show more analytic cognitive habits, categorizing objects in a more taxonomic fashion (Knight & Nisbett, 2007). Even more fine-grained comparisons have found that, within a culture, groups differing in social orientation also differ in cognitive style. For example, Uskul and colleagues compared neighboring villages in the Black Sea region of Turkey that differed in terms of their primary economic activity (Uskul, Kitayama, & Nisbett, 2008). Previous research has found that more sedentary communities (such as farming communities and cooperative fishing communities) tend to be characterized by a more interdependent social orientation and holistic cognition (specifically field dependence or the tendency to have difficulty separating objects from their contexts; Berry, 1966; Witkin & Berry, 1975). Less sedentary communiti